Are Your Works Being Infringed?

Someone asked me how to find out if their works are being infringed.

One method is to do an online search for the title of their book(s) and of their authorname. Another is to set up a variety of Google Alerts for their book title, also for some distinctive phrases used in their writing.

Osborne Clarke suggests some practical ways to respond to infringement.

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=766ec599-6092-4f69-8665-0c562135bcf2&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2017-07-10&utm_term=

Not every infringement can be taken down. Sometimes, Google lawyers will declare (mistakenly) that an infringing use is "Fair". Google lawyers have done that to me over "Knight's Fork", and I have no recourse.

I can say with reasonable certainty that, if a so-called online library is lending a "Rowena Cherry" book--for instance "Knight's Fork by Rowena Cherry" to subscribers in any digital format, that online library has no right to do so, because I never gave permission --and explicitly refused permission-- for any of my books, except "Mating Net" by Rowena Beaumont Cherry (which is published by New Concepts Publishing), and the hunk cover version of "Forced Mate" by Rowena Beaumont Cherry which was published by NBI, to be released in ebook formats.

Did you notice that? A lawful digital copy of my work is by "Rowena Beaumont Cherry". Any ebook by "Rowena Cherry" was illegally created and illegally sold.

However, if the (alleged) pirate site uses a privacy service, and the privacy service is the only link provided on the (alleged) pirate for any kind of contact at all, an author is within her rights to contact that privacy service to complain vociferously and repeatedly.

But... do not create an account.  In my opinion, Congress and the Administration and the Copyright Office make a serious error when they agree that it is lawful for a site such as EBay to force authors to join its VERO (verified rights owner) program in order to complain about copyright infringement.

Why should a creator who is being ripped off be denied the right to send a DMCA notice, as prescribed by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and forced instead to subscribe to a site or become a member of a site?

It's like being forced to purchase a product one does not want or need. Only it is worse.

The trouble with joining any site or service, (apart from the possibility of having to pay them) is the Terms of Service. One cannot join (even for the purposes of asking them to cease and desist from piracy or facilitating piracy or profiting from piracy) without agreeing to their TOS.

Have you ever read TOS? Try it sometime. Any site's TOS will do.  Do judges and lawyers and lawmakers read TOS? Usually, part of what you agree to is that you give up the right to sue them.

How's that? A site like EBay or Google may protect alleged copyright infringers, and give the alleged copyright infringers the ability to profit from alleged piracy, but in order to send a takedown notice, the ripped off author is forced to promise to indemnify the host and patron of the alleged copyright infringers.  That does not seem right to me.

On the other hand, there are many online "subscription libraries" that one suspects do not have the books they claim to have. They may only want your credit card information.

Stay wary, my friends!

All the best,
Rowena Cherry

Hope For A Copyright Small Claims Court

According to the Authors Guild, it costs approximately $150,000 for a copyright owner to take a copyright infringer to court.

As I pointed out in a recent post, as long as Copyright law on the internet provides that, if a Takedown notice is ignored, or if a counter-notice (even a bogus one, or a misinformed one) is filed in response to a takedown notice, the copyright infringing work will stay up and continue to make money for the pirate and the pirate's hosts for ever, unless the author can spare $150,000 to pursue a lawsuit.

The Authors Guild reports that a Congressman in Washington has promised to introduce a bill, perhaps to set up a small copyright claims court.

Read more on https://www.authorsguild.org/industry-advocacy/authors-guild-hits-the-capitol/

In other copyright infringement news, my novella ebook Mating Net apparently remains illegally available--ignoring multiple Takedown notices from me-- on Mobilism.org and the alleged copyright infringer from Ontario, KellyKing29 has now apparently uploaded over 20,000 copyrighted ebooks to the site.

Of course, it could all be ransomeware!

A quick visit to the page http://booksmobile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1292&t=719315  will show you how "AdChoices" makes copyright infringement profitable for Mobilism and its users, displaying pitches from Sterling Heights Dodge Jeep  also Parkway Chrysler Dodge (astounding how Google knows what is close to my IP location, but cannot distinguish a pirate site by its content and traffic!)

Another pirate site newly on my radar is Memoirbook.top  http://memoirbook.top . This site has an interesting blurb on any page stating that their tactics will make publishers sad.  They appear to post book titles, but mix up the authors' names, so for instance, I might find that one of my titles has been authored by Daphne Du Maurier (but the cover art shows that it's my book by me).  You might find that you've downloaded ransomeware if you try to download an ebook.

Authors should know that the law does not require you to download potential ransomeware in order to have a good faith belief that your copyright has been infringed.


All the best,
Rowena Cherry

Congress, Close Those Pirate-Friendly Loopholes, Please!

For the benefit of authors and interested readers of this blog who are not members of Authors' Guild, I am sharing recent news from the Guild.

Dear Member, 

This week, we sent a letter to Congress asking for help in fighting piracy, which affects us all. Authors care about e-book piracy. We hear this increasingly from our members. From 2009 to 2013, the number of Internet piracy alerts we received increased over 300%. In the next year alone, from 2013 to 2014, it doubled. 

There is a direct connection between e-book piracy and authors’ pocketbooks. The publishing industry as a whole loses $80 to $100 million to piracy annually, according to the Association of American Publishers. Many publishers have the resources to adjust their business models to absorb piracy-related losses, but individual authors don’t. Each time a standard frontlist e-book is pirated rather than purchased through a normal retail channel, its author forgoes what would have been nearly $2 in royalties. This adds up and make a real dent in the typical author’s earnings. (According to our recent survey, median writing-related income for full-time authors in 2014 was only $17,500.) 

Despite many publishers’ implementation of anti-piracy software and technological protection measures, the problem continues to grow. According to the International Intellectual Property Alliance, the effectiveness of protection measures is limited by “business models built entirely around manufacturing and distributing technologies, software, devices, components, or tools, or around providing services, to gain unlawful access to the content or to copy it without authorization.” 

So we’re asking Congress to do something about it. This letter, addressed to the House Judiciary Committee (which is spearheading a review of U.S. copyright law), reminds members of Congress that Internet piracy directly harms authors’ ability to make a living. It asks them to consider key changes to the U.S. Copyright Act to give authors a productive remedy for online infringement—not the ineffective, Sisyphean system currently in place, known as “Notice and Takedown.” 

Court decisions have construed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s Notice and Takedown provisions to mean that a copyright owner is required to send a notice for each separate instance (i.e., copy) of infringement, specifying the URL. But as soon as a pirated copy is taken down, it is usually put right back up. Needless to say, copyright owners cannot keep up with this senseless game, and individual authors do not begin to have the resources to send a new notice every time a pirated copy is posted or reposted. 

We are asking for a “Notice and Stay-Down” regime: once a webhost knows a work is being infringed, it should not continue to receive “safe harbor” immunity from claims of infringement unless it takes reasonable measures to remove all infringing copies of the same work. 

You can help supplement our efforts to create more awareness among members of Congress by contacting your Representative to express your support for this change. Feel free to pass along our letter or write your own. And, as always, if you’ve been a victim of Internet piracy, let us know at staff@authorsguild.org.

Full link to the letter: 

http://hosting-source.bm23.com/896/public/Letter_to_Judiciary_Comm._7.9.15.pdf

Do read the letter. It calls out Google Play and the pirated works posted there. I've seen illegal ebook versions of my works posted on other sites with false release dates and false publisher information. 

Like this: (But, I wouldn't visit lacumbre if I were you!)

http://www.lacumbre.com/review-714-498-forced_mate_god_princes_of_tigron_1_/

Publisher

Transworld

Publication date

28th August 2014

ISBN

0505526018

Length

326 pages

Categories

Thrillers

I've never had a contract with Transworld and the book is not a "Thriller". It was released as a paperback, and only as a paperback by Dorchester Publishing's "LoveSpell" imprint.

More anon.

Rowena Cherry

When Is A Library Not A Library?

That's not a joke, and there is no punch line.

The definition* (at the end of this post) might need to be changed, in view of current use, and the popularity of ebooks. Perhaps as Congress reviews copyright, they should also review the meaning of a library, because the term is used differently on Scribd, on EBay, on Nakido, on various pirate sites, on eBookFling, and now on Entitle.

It seems that anyone who owns access to the internet is entitled to "have" a "library" of ebooks, which they are "entitled" to "own" and "lend". Ah. "ownership" is another term/concept that will have to be re-defined for the digital age, because there are a lot of powerful interests on the internet who would like an author to sell non-exclusive copyright to an ebook for as little as $ 0.99 but certainly for no more than $ 9.99.

"Lending" is another term that has been re-defined by the internet, because not all libraries require a patron or subscriber to return that which was loaned.

Take Entitle, for instance.

Quoting: "We know you love to read. But for avid readers, buying books gets expensive. Entitle, a new eBook subscription service, gives you access to 100,000+ top eBooks – up to 65% off. With Entitle, you will enjoy:

•    Any two books, including best sellers and new releases, for only $14.99

•    Huge price savings over traditional eBook stores

•    A fantastic selection of over 100,000 books

•    Ownership of your books (Entitle is not a rental service)"

How's that? One pays $14.99 a month, and for that good and valuable consideration, one acquires "ownership" of two ebooks.

How is that not a sale? What is the legal meaning of "ownership" when acquired in this fashion?  What is the effect on the author's copyright?

Moreover, if it is possible to acquire ownership of two best sellers for $14.99 (when each best seller is --or could potentially be-- advertised on Amazon for close to $20 each), how does that affect the Big Five book settlements with the DOJ, and also Amazon contracts that oblige publishers to allow Amazon to sell that book at the lowest possible price offered anywhere.... even on the publishers' own websites?

Here's a video of a Bloomberg report on Entitle for those who are curious.
http://bloom.bg/JFZbb5#ooid=NvaTZiajr4IT6bmqzu3Aktrofn6EwaQg

Entitle very probably purchased eBookFling. (If my inference is mistaken, it is because Entitle recently emailed me using an eBookFling email account.)  I've been watching eBookFling because I found their abuse of authors' generosity offensive, personally.

Many authors give away ebooks on Amazon to increase their visibility and ranking. Some offer permafree novels, which are always on special (free) offer. Some offer an ebook free for a day, or up to five days before the book goes back on sale at the regular price. Their premise is that readers who download the freebie will read it, perhaps review it, hopefully enjoy it so much that they purchase other works by the same author.

Sites such as Lendlink, Lendle, eBookFling and others exploited this premise, and set up commercial business models based on "traffic" for their own benefit, and also brokering "lending" between strangers who wanted to avoid paying for books.

EBookFling used to send out emails titled something like: "Steal today's Kindle book...."
Their exhortations included "Even if it's not your cup of tea, you can add it to your eBookFling library and fling it to all those fools who missed out on today's opportunity."

In my opinion, free ebooks were being used explicitly for bartering transactions. The original downloader did not have to read the ebook, they downloaded it for the valuable, tradeable benefit of being able to "lend" it in exchange for something that they really did want to read, and did not want to pay for.

Quoting: "With 14-day lending now available on tens of thousands of Nook and Kindle books, eBookFling makes it possible for readers across America to borrow and share their ebooks. Lend an ebook, earn a credit, and borrow any other for free! It's 100% safe with the book returned in 14 days guaranteed. Here's how it works:"

Amazon forums hosted a discussion of eBookFling.
http://www.amazon.com/forum/romance/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg1?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=FxM42D5QN2YZ1D&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=TxMZQHM22C9OU1

Quoting:
"Question-
Is it true that you can only loan out a kindle ebook ONCE? So if I lent out, say Devil in Winter, to someone for 2 weeks after it was returned to my account I could never lend it out again?"

"No, you may loan out more than once. You just can't loan it to someone else while it's on loaned."

I kept that revelation, because I thought that Amazon only allowed any ebook to be lent once..... and later

"ebookfling.com is a great site for loaning books - Kindle and Nook. You list your tradeable books, "fling" when requested (from individuals as well as the company) and the rules are pretty much the same as Amazon. It's lots easier than typing your lists. And yes, you can loan more than once (but not at the same time it's loaned out.) I have no part in this website - just happened upon it. It works for me. Unfortunately I've loaned more than I've received, but I am building up credits..... "

The discussion has been removed, possibly because someone posted this kind offer along with a list of desirable, in copyright Romance novels: " I don't have a Kindle but I can e-mail these books to anyone who's interested. Just post your email address and what books you want. Most of them are formatted in ePub so I downloaded Stanza for free on my iPad to make them readable."

EBookFling were Amazon affiliates, and for a time, Amazon paid affiliates simply for directing persons who wished to download a free book to their site. ("eBookFling.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com.)

This stopped. Presumably, that's why EBookFling was sold. It will be interesting to see whether Entitle lives up to its ambition to be "the netflix of ebooks", and whether authors receive full and fair accounting and full royalties for the transactions on the Entitle site that result in "ownership" of ebooks.

It seems to me, though, that every time an ebook is sold or licensed or loaned at a discount, the discount is subsidized by the author without the author's knowledge or consent.

*noun

noun: library; plural noun: libraries

1. 1.

   a building or room containing collections of books, periodicals, and sometimes films and recorded music for people to read, borrow, or refer to.

   "a school library"

   • a collection of books and periodicals held in a library.

     "the Institute houses an outstanding library of 35,000 volumes on the fine arts"
   • a collection of films, recorded music, genetic material, etc., organized systematically and kept for research or borrowing.

     "a record library"
   • a series of books, recordings, etc., issued by the same company and similar in appearance.
   • a room in a private house where books are kept.
   • Computing

     a collection of programs and software packages made generally available, often loaded and stored on disk for immediate use.

     noun: software library; plural noun: software libraries
     
     
     All the best,
     Rowena Cherry
     
     SPACE SNARK™ http://www.spacesnark.com/